Agnostic Muslim

What a mess, is my first thought at reading that - what a mess he created and what seeds of evil that vile Zia sowed in Pakistan.

Mullah Fazlullah is the imprisoned TNSM leader, Sufi Mohammed, son in law. Sufi Mohammed was the gent who led thousands of volunteers to their deaths in Afghanistan after the invasion. As you can see, the organization has very strong ties to the Taliban, as also evidenced by the Arabs and other foreign Al Qaeda types being arrested and killed there and by the messages of support being issued by Taliban leaders for Mullah FM. As such they would be an extreme Sunni group, and therefore the premise that the "limits" set by the PA are of a manner that allows for the majority Sunni sect in the army to undertake operations with more fervor, against the Shia, is flawed.

I will have to check whether Swat is primarily Shia. Off hand I don't believe so, and the events in Swat would seem to justify this -

- The existence of the TNSM and its ability to raise thousands of volunteers would indicate a heavy Sunni presence.

- The relative sectarian harmony (no major sectarian conflicts such as those in Parachinar mentioned by the author), despite the presence of such a virulent Sunni org. would seem to indicate a low Shia population.

__________________
Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission - Jinnah

Agnostic Muslim

I hope you realize that the following part of that article you posted negates your own arguments earlier, and essentially exonerates Pakistan and the ISI (and if someone ever has time, I would like to know what facts exactly the "state within a state" perception of it is based upon - given how it functions, which I commented on in a response to you in one of the SA threads)

Ray

Because it was at variance, is the reason why I thought you would be able to clarify.

In fact, with so many issues playing its part, whole thing is very woolly to say the least.

__________________


"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

HAKUNA MATATA

Adux

AM,

I could happily give you a lot of article from neutral sources which states that ISI is involved in weapon smuggling and support of Taliban. Heck, go to militaryphotos.net we have men currently working in Afghanistan Canadian forces accusing Pakistani establishment. I will not derail a good topic here. So if you want more articles and evidence which shows ISI involvement, OM me


Adu

Agnostic Muslim

I don't think this is hijacking the topic Adux. The only justification of R Peters plan, to divide Pakistan rather than Afghanistan, would be if Pakistan were a "failed state". The accusations directed at the ISI for being a "state within a state" are an important part of the equation in determining whether we meet "failed state" criteria.

I am not interested in accusations so much as the basis behind those accusations from the site you mentioned. You don't have to post the articles here, though do PM me with them. I would like to point out that even if you have articles that say the exact opposite of what this one does, that the ISI and GoP are involved in supplying arms to the Taliban, that illustrates one thing, that you have opinions on both sides of the spectrum. So how can you conclusively pick one to be of more veracity than the other? I say that this report is far more credible than any that you bring up detailing the opposite.

I do think that this issue can be looked at with reason and commonsense, and to start off with, I'll use the arguments made in the analysis you posted:

1. "But it is extremely unlikely the ISI would now allow them access to anti-aircraft missiles or armour-piercing ammunition."

Why would the ISI allow the Taliban access to weapons that would target the Pakistani Army, especially the armor-piercing ammunition and anti-aircraft missiles?

2. "The Pakistani army's relationship between militants in its tribal areas along the Afghan border has deteriorated sharply in recent years"

When the Taliban have tortured, beheaded, and mutilated the bodies of pakistani soldiers (and the army's response after one particularly gruesome event was to have that bloody battle involving fighter jets that ended with 250 militants, 50 soldiers and 50 civilians dead), why would there be any reason for all but rogue elements to support the Taliban?

The alternative presented by the author makes far more sense than the "ISI did it" refrain.

bolo121

"You don't want to go there, stud. Bluntly, Americans fight. Pakistanis surrender. In fact, I believe there are a few threads on PDF that closely detail the specifics on the Pakistani Army's latest surrenders. Few anywhere are impressed by Pakistan's de facto abdication of sovereignty along it's borders, to include many of your fellow Pakistani posters"


Yes but for how long?
US army historically is very fierce for a short time then gets tired of these small wars at the periphery of the empire.
Being a wealthy nation, america naturally lacks the capacity to sit and endure suffering for a long time.
So the US people get fed up and call them back after a while.
Compared to well trained and tough US troops taliban may look pathetic but in the long run, the will be there and you will have gone home so they will win.

S-2

No attribution to the quote? That's moi.

Have you introduced yourself at the "Members Intro" board? Do so, please, and then take a moment to fill out your personal profile.

Afterwards, maybe we can discuss your broad and grossly inaccurate generalizations about an army for which you clearly know next to nothing, much less it's citizenry.

Empire? Really...

__________________
"This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski

bolo121

ok sorry if i insulted your uniform
All i said was US army very powerful, but US public gets tired fast.
Vietnam biggest example (clever fellow that general Giap)
Somalia in a different way also similar
In both places US military crushed enemy badly but still US did not win

Agnostic Muslim

Pakistan News Service - PakTribune

I just wanted to post something other than a research piece by a journalist to point out the opinions on the the side of the spectrum, that I favor.

That said, I do believe that the ISI has connections to the Taliban. The most overt example of this is their "alliance" with Mullah Nazir. Mullah Nazir was a crucial ally in their drive against "foreign fighters" out of South Waziristan. He did this despite severe opposition from Baitullah Mehsud (the new leader of the United Taliban front) and survived an assassination attempt later. This also illustrates something interesting, the presence of factions within the Taliban which could be persuaded, and in this case were, to adopt a relatively pragmatic and non anti-state stance. Mullah Nazir is also speculated to be part of a GoP effort to divide S Waziristan and isolate the Mehsud (an article I posted in another thread). To that extent I would agree that the ISI is retaining links to some factions of the Taliban and supporting them (and of course we know that the support never remains isolated to the groups it was intended for) . This would also explain the GoP's position that the Karzai Govt. and NATO need to try and engage the Taliban (or some factions that would be interested) and have them participate in the political process.

Pakistan's interest in this is obviously to not see complete control of Afghanistan in the hands of a "hostile government", though there are other reasons - the downsides are that even the "pragmatic Taliban" would argue in favor of social policies that the West would find "abhorrent". In the Tribal areas however, and specifically the territory that is under Pakistan's control, cultural norms are already skewed in favor of the social policies of the Taliban - in fact the "Pragmatic Taliban" would possibly bring about an improvement on the Law and Order front, something to be welcomed by both the people of FATA and the rest of Pakistan. If coupled with economic activity and development, the hope is that that the society of FATA could evolve into a more moderate one.

Neo

I agree, ISI has some connections with Taliban, its in our interest regarding future perpectives.

We have to look beyond US led NATO invasion of Afghanistan, these forces will eventually leave and Afghanistan will be left devided as ever.
ISI filled the vacuum created by US' abandonement in 1987 after the withdrawl of Sovjet troops, ahw will have to do it again after the NATO leaves.

Its naive to believe that Karzai's goverment will unite the ethnically devided nation, taliban still have popular support over Karzai. Once US leaves Karzai's puppet government will fall bringing Taliban to power once again.

__________________
Administrator @ Defence.pk

Officer of Engineers

You mean lucky fellow that General Vo. Giap is his given name. Vo is his surname and he was damned lucky the American public turned out the way it did, after the friggin Tet disaster that he planned, executed, and lost.

If it was any other army, it would've been called a resounding victory. Adid was smashed beyond recovery and the casualties were very well acceptable.

__________________
Chimo

Officer of Engineers

The ECONOMIST and BBC agrees with you. The strange thing is that NATO forces enjoy the biggest support of all the parties in Afghanistan (close to 70%).

Afghanistan will still be divided when we leave but maybe, just maybe that we can get them to shout at each other rather than to shoot at each other.

Officer of Engineers

I keep shaking my head at this kind of thinking. Basically, you want to win the peace without winning the war. The question is if your leaders failed at war, then what makes you think that they will be any better winning over your enemies in peace?

S-2

"...taliban still have popular support over Karzai."

Your indicators?

If it's a foregone conclusion that the taliban would usurp Karzai upon America's departure, why would it even leave?

If Karzai lost power to the taliban after America leaves would the U.S. return?

Could the taliban stop the U.S. from returning?

Agnostic Muslim

I think it is foolish to ignore the Taliban. The sort of "social change" the US would like to implement in Afghanistan will be resisted on cultural grounds, in the Tribal areas and more conservative provinces, whether the Taliban are present or not. Trying to duke it out with them, and trying to implement change that the populace may not want, only bolsters their credibility and argument that it is a "Western conspiracy to destroy Islam and their culture".

It might be worth establishing contacts with factions that are interested in dialog, and compromising on certain issues - say autonomy in the Afghan tribal belt and certain other "conservative" areas that would allow for the Taliban laying down their arms to implement "Shariah Law" (as they define it). Perhaps some concessions can be wrangled out of them - eliminating poppy, limiting the drug trade, health and educational infrastructure (male dominated is probably all they would accept, but hey, its a compromise), and limiting their rule to areas where the cultural norms already jive with Taliban policies.

The ensuing stability, and some semblance of stability is needed to begin some process of societal healing and change, could be used to de-weaponize Afghanistan, strengthen the Afghan Government and the political process, and work with its neighbors to cutoff the supply routes for weapons.